One of the most striking events in history was the initial growth of Islam. Within half a century after the Hijra, Islam had already conquered the whole of North Africa from Egypt to Morocco, all the Middle Eastern lands from Yemen to Caucasia and from Egypt to the lands beyond Transoxiana. So, how was it able to spread so rapidly in a short period of time?

Islam didn't spread as much as Muslim political and military control spread. The areas you mentioned were all conquered by Muslims, yes, but the populations were largely unconverted. That process would take several centuries.

Basically, there are two reasons for the sucess of the Islamic armies:

1) Discontent with the Byzantines and the Sassanids. The Byzantines heavily taxed the Middle Eastern provinces (especially Egypt and Syria) to fight far-off wars. They also attempted to assert the authority of the Greek Orthodox church over smaller local sects, such as the Coptic and Syrian Christians. This did not stand well with the locals.

I'm less familiar with the specifics of Sassanid excesses, but they had heavy forced military service and were also great taxers. The elitism of the state-sponsored (and tax-supported) Zoroastrian religion, which most of the subjects did not follow, created further tension and resentment.

2) Bedouin pragmatism. The Arab nomads who first adopted Islam had no previous theology or moral code to speak of, nor had they settled and adopted a dogmatic way of doing things. They were therefore more open to military innovation and (more importantly) to toleration of different beliefs.

When Bedouin armies entered Byzantine or Sassanid provinces, they were seen as liberators. They tolerated other monotheistic religions that were different from their own (apart from taxing them) and reinvested tax monies into local areas rather than into far-off wars (Nomad armies are remarkably low-mantienance).

While pagans were often forcibly converted or worse, Christians and Jews were largely convinced to convert for economic reasons. It was a big tax break. However, it took several years before Muslims were anything of a majority. Until 1000, by some accounts.

And the Islam appeared at exactly the right time for rapid growth in the Middle East. The Byzantines and Sassanids had recently fought a major war and thus were easily defeated. However, beyond those empires, the lands were not in such a weakened state so they had the ablilty to fight them off, such as the Franks, the Nezaks, the Khazars and the Turgish.

All the same, it's remarkable that Persia, which had been the greatest rival of the Roman (later Byzantine) empires for over a millenium, was completely conquered by the newly-united Arabs within a generation. I'd say Mohammed and his following were truly a unique phenomenon, not just something bound to happen sooner or later under those circumstances.

We should be thankful that the Byzantines didn't fall just as easily, or as soon. Chaotic, weakened Dark Age Europe would have been open to Muslim invasion: Christianity might be long extinct by now!

Anyone here read Harry Turtledove's "Agent of Byzantium"? That describes an alternate 14th Century, if Islam had never got started.

Originally posted by Pariah
All the same, it's remarkable that Persia, which had been the greatest rival of the Roman (later Byzantine) empires for over a millenium, was completely conquered by the newly-united Arabs within a generation. I'd say Mohammed and his following were truly a unique phenomenon, not just something bound to happen sooner or later under those circumstances.

We should be thankful that the Byzantines didn't fall just as easily, or as soon. Chaotic, weakened Dark Age Europe would have been open to Muslim invasion: Christianity might be long extinct by now!

Anyone here read Harry Turtledove's "Agent of Byzantium"? That describes an alternate 14th Century, if Islam had never got started.

I haven't read the book, but i do agree with a Muslim conquest of Europe. Suleman the Great himself funded the Protestant Reformation greatly, hoping the dissolution would allow quick conquest past Vienna in Austria. He died before he could though.

1) Discontent with the Byzantines and the Sassanids. The Byzantines heavily taxed the Middle Eastern provinces (especially Egypt and Syria) to fight far-off wars. They also attempted to assert the authority of the Greek Orthodox church over smaller local sects, such as the Coptic and Syrian Christians. This did not stand well with the locals.

Not to mention, the South Eastern provinces were pissed at Constantinople for the persecution they received from Justinian by the Popes request (in exchange he aproved Justinians reconquest of the Western Med).

The divisions in the Christian church had a great deal to do with it. Judaism is an orietal religion. Roman, or Byzantine, Christianity was heavily influenced by greek philosphy, notably the concept of the Trinity. The official church was trinitarian, but much of the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire, the Syrians and Coptics was not. The rift was viewed as heresy by the church and persecuted.

When Islam came along in the 8th century, the monophysite sects converted wholesale to Islam, which is much closer to the way a former Jew would practice Christianity. So, rather than being bottled up in the desert, which would have seemed the obvious fate, like, for example, the Ethiopian Church, Islam spread quickly and smoothly through Syria and Jordan to the boundaries of Persia. The conquest of Persia has already been touched on.

One other thing that bears mention is Tamerlane, Timur-Links. While he was not a pious man, his armies were instrumental in making Islam the semi official religion of all of central Asia.

J

Onejayhawk, the conversion of most of Central Asia to Islam occured much eariler. Empires like Saffarid Persia, Ghazna, and the Western Qarakhanate had already forced much of the populace to convert centuries before. But Eastern Turkestan was never ruled by any of those empires or even Tamerlane so the conversion was peaceful and gradual (comparitively).

They had rocket launchers.

There was a power vacuum. A lot of the old dominant civilisations in the region were shaken by the global upheavals following 535AD, and in the following century many were in decline. The dominant culture in Yeman (Saba? The name escapes me) was failing fast, and Islam was able to be the rising star at the right time.

Riesstiu IV: One of the most striking events in history was the initial growth of Islam. Within half a century after the Hijra, Islam had already conquered the whole of North Africa from Egypt to Morocco, all the Middle Eastern lands from Yemen to Caucasia and from Egypt to the lands beyond Transoxiana. So, how was it able to spread so rapidly in a short period of time?

There are various reasons. As people have mentioned, the Byzantines and Sassanids had devastated themselves in wars against each other. They also were very religious empires, with the Persians determined to convert captured peoples to Zoroastrianism (This rarely worked, because they usually conquered Byzantines, and Christians didn't want to convert to non-monotheistic religions at all). Also, the Persian and Byzantine armies were used to their respective style of battle. The cavalry and infantry were heavily armored, had a set strategy, and were largely encouraged to fight due to their pay. The Arabs on the other hand had thousands of people determined by a strong faith, on quick horses and using skirmishing tactics. The fact that Mohammed's prophecy of the Persian empire entering civil war turned out true was also of great help, as it greatly weakened the Persians.

SeleucusNicator: While pagans were often forcibly converted or worse, Christians and Jews were largely convinced to convert for economic reasons. It was a big tax break. However, it took several years before Muslims were anything of a majority. Until 1000, by some accounts.

I agree with you on everything but this. While it's no lie that non-muslims were very heavily taxed, this was done to provide a source of income. Therefore, for about 2 centuries during that time, even if christians and jews wanted to convert, they would've been sent back, as the Islamic ruling caste wanted Islam to stay a thing of the Arabs. This was in large part responsible for the very large numbers of East Orthodox Christians in the fertile crescent and elsewhere.

Pariah: We should be thankful that the Byzantines didn't fall just as easily, or as soon. Chaotic, weakened Dark Age Europe would have been open to Muslim invasion: Christianity might be long extinct by now!

I completely disagree. For one, the Islamic Caliphate state wasn't a very well structured goverment, and was very weak over long distances. This eventually led to the chaotic politics of middle age islam which split it up into various faction. For another, to say that Christianity would be dead if the Muslims somehow managed to conquer all of Europe (even when divided) is a strange thing to say considering that Christianity was doing very well in the middle of the Arabic world itself. One has only to look at the Ottomans, who ruled a large chunk of Europe, but over 5 centuries only partly converted 2 peoples.

The early Islamic expansionists were less tolerant of other religions than their distant successors. Didn't they wage war under the battle cry of "The Qu'ran or the sword!"? And, weak though it might have been, the Caliphate was, a least, a single government for all the lands of Islam. Christendom, in the Middle Ages, was divided and constantly warring on itself.
Still, I concede your point that Christianity itself would most likely have survived even if the monarchies founded on it were conquered. But what if Rome had fallen to the Muslims, and the papacy been eliminated? Perhaps the remaining Christian regions and sects would have become independent, local religions.

Originally posted by Pariah
The early Islamic expansionists were less tolerant of other religions than their distant successors. Didn't they wage war under the battle cry of "The Qu'ran or the sword!"? And, weak though it might have been, the Caliphate was, a least, a single government for all the lands of Islam. Christendom, in the Middle Ages, was divided and constantly warring on itself.

Yes, they were less tolerant, but to say they were extremely intolerant would be wrong. Who knows if "The Qu'ran or the Sword!" was their battle cry; it's been 1400 years and the early Muslim expansions aren't as well documented as say, the crusades or wars against the Mongols. But if that was the mentality, then why weren't all the people all forced to convert? I think that the "Qu'ran or the Sword" ideology probably applied to pagans and non-Abrahamic religions. The Christians and Jews were for the most part safe.

Originally posted by Pariah
Still, I concede your point that Christianity itself would most likely have survived even if the monarchies founded on it were conquered. But what if Rome had fallen to the Muslims, and the papacy been eliminated? Perhaps the remaining Christian regions and sects would have become independent, local religions.

Interesting question. First of all I'm not sure if they would get rid of the pope; perhaps he'd still be there but without the powers he previously held. Look at the Ottomans, they let the East Orthodox keep their church orginization. But of course it all depends on the situation. If Rome was conquered in the 13th century by someone such as Beybers, then no, the Muslims would've been anything but kind to the captives.

Another thing to consider is that Europe had a huge population advantage on the Islamic World for most of the middle ages. It is very doubtful that they would've been able to keep the Catholics in check for longer than a few decades if they had captured them. Hardly enough time to leave a dent with conversions of any sort.

The Pope would have remained. The Muslims had given extensive powers to a Jewish prince and his successors; they lasted until their powers were stripped by the Ottoman Turks.

Pagans are a different matter though. Muslims believe Christians and Jews to be of a very similar religion so they were only heavily taxed, but Paganism and other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Manichaesm, Zoroastrianism, Animism, Taoism, Mithracism, etc.) were not tolerated at all unless they were too distant to be dealt with.

Because they had a great will and they could fight good

The Christians and Jews were for the most part safe.

Cept they were heavally taxed amongst other things to "encourage" to convert.

Because they had a great will and they could fight good

That rarely helps alone, it could crdit them for conquering Arabia, but most of the Middle East and Mediterranean world.... they needed alot of luck :)

While pagans were often forcibly converted or worse

They weren't forced very often, just used as slaves until they realized the easy road was to become a Muslim and be free.

(This rarely worked, because they usually conquered Byzantines, and Christians didn't want to convert to non-monotheistic religions at all)

If any Christian would join a polytheistic religion by force, it would be Zoroastorianism since it skirted the fence of both sides, and drew alot from the monotheistic faiths.

Originally posted by Chauliodus


Cept they were heavally taxed amongst other things to "encourage" to convert.

Except they weren't. They were taxed because the empire needed income, and the tax on Muslims went to charity. Why would anyone want to lose their chief source of income? You seem to have the misconception that all Muslim rulers from 600-1000 A.D. were more religious than they were power hungry. For a long time during that period, the ruling class especially didn't want Jews and Christians to convert. There are accounts of whole villages offering to convert to Islam, but the rulers refusing.

Originally posted by Chauliodus


They weren't forced very often, just used as slaves until they realized the easy road was to become a Muslim and be free.


And then how do you explain the Muslim slaves. Slavery in the Muslim world wasn't discriminatory in nature like the one found in the U.S. of the 1800's.

Originally posted by Chauliodus


If any Christian would join a polytheistic religion by force, it would be Zoroastorianism since it skirted the fence of both sides, and drew alot from the monotheistic faiths.

Yes, they probably would. However, what matters is, they didn't. It's very rare for a monotheist to convert to Polytheism, and especially in places where monotheism had been accepted since forever (Such as Aremnia).

Originally posted by aaminion00
You seem to have the misconception that all Muslim rulers from 600-1000 A.D. were more religious than they were power hungry. For a long time during that period, the ruling class especially didn't want Jews and Christians to convert.

Do you think Medeviel Christians much wanted to convert Muslims, as well as simply recapturing conquered territory from them? Later, colonial European powers almost always turned missionary and tried to Christianize whoever they could.

Originally posted by Pariah


Do you think Medeviel Christians much wanted to convert Muslims, as well as simply recapturing conquered territory from them? Later, colonial European powers almost always turned missionary and tried to Christianize whoever they could.

What? No, I don't think Medieval Christians necessarily wanted to convert Muslims. For one, most were usually too far away or too uneducate to know much about it except that it was the religion of the Arabs. Second, in the instances when Christians did conquer Muslim land, they were in positions where it was much better to kill what Muslims were there as opposed to taking the time and effort to try and convert a hostile populace (i.e. the Crusades). As for the later colonial powers trying to christianize the New World, you have to remember that whereas the Muslims were a civilization that at the time of the crusades pretty much eclipsed the Europeans, the Aztecs and Incas were several hundred years behind the colonizers.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Onejayhawk, the conversion of most of Central Asia to Islam occured much eariler. Empires like Saffarid Persia, Ghazna, and the Western Qarakhanate had already forced much of the populace to convert centuries before. But Eastern Turkestan was never ruled by any of those empires or even Tamerlane so the conversion was peaceful and gradual (comparitively). Perhaps I have the wrong General. The point is that much of the spread of Islam was at sword point.

J

Originally posted by onejayhawk
The divisions in the Christian church had a great deal to do with it. Judaism is an orietal religion. Roman, or Byzantine, Christianity was heavily influenced by greek philosphy, notably the concept of the Trinity. The official church was trinitarian, but much of the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire, the Syrians and Coptics was not. The rift was viewed as heresy by the church and persecuted.

When Islam came along in the 8th century, the monophysite sects converted wholesale to Islam, which is much closer to the way a former Jew would practice Christianity. So, rather than being bottled up in the desert, which would have seemed the obvious fate, like, for example, the Ethiopian Church, Islam spread quickly and smoothly through Syria and Jordan to the boundaries of Persia. The conquest of Persia has already been touched on.

One other thing that bears mention is Tamerlane, Timur-Links. While he was not a pious man, his armies were instrumental in making Islam the semi official religion of all of central Asia.

J

You are terribly wrong. Copts and Syriacs WERE AND ARE recognising Holy Trinity, the difference between them and the orthodox church is the concept of nature of christ. They are the same hellenic.
The Islam appeared in VII century, not VIII.
The monophysites converted slowly, and still formed a majority after several centuries of Muslim rule. The main reason of converting were not religious, but economical and political - christians had to pay much higher taxes.

Muslim growth was also due to their theological premise that any thing is justified for the destrucion of a nonbeliever. This gave them a severe advantagein arabia and gave them a footing for a massive invasion of the middle east.

Originally posted by Ballazic
Muslim growth was also due to their theological premise that any thing is justified for the destrucion of a nonbeliever. This gave them a severe advantagein arabia and gave them a footing for a massive invasion of the middle east.

Right. Exactly why the Arabs murdered jews and christians in the thousands. The early expansions weren't justified because those evil arabs wanted to kill all the christiands and jews mr.mohammad was a bastard, they were justified as expanding the Islamic state and area of control.

This kill-to-redeem attitude of Islam is all too evident in the present day as well... even at its most despotic, as typified by the Inquisition, could Christianity have justified something as destructive as the September 11th attacks?

Originally posted by Pariah
This kill-to-redeem attitude of Islam is all too evident in the present day as well... even at its most despotic, as typified by the Inquisition, could Christianity have justified something as destructive as the September 11th attacks?

:lol: Yes, because September 11th was of such terrible magnitude. No really, how anyone could compare such minor details as the millions killed in the name of christ over the years to the 3000 in the World Trade Center is beyond me. Please. I come from a country where people were killed, raped, and kicked out of their homes in the thousands in the name of Christianity, so don't give me any of that bull. Christianity can easily justify the killing of thousands of innocent people, just like most other popular religions. It's done it for two thousand years and nothing has changed.

there is sad truth to AA statements- chrsitinity has, and apperntlly will continue to in some countires kill in the name of its self with little or no regard for morality, while other member to it blindlly go about thinking thier moral superiorty because of thier religion- just because -currentlly- Isalm is the most -visiblly- militant of the religions dose not mean the other religions have not been, nor are not currentlly- even buddism has had some militant polieics behind it, albe it those are mainlly in the middle aghes, and I can think of no modern or even semi modern case of its miltantsy

that said heres an interesting little foot note on history- although genearlly spaking the persians did thier most to convert others to thier religion, one fo the conditions of Justinains peace with them was that he had to let the polythieists from athens (after he kicked them out, and closed down the polythiestic schools there) back into the byzantine empire in peace

Originally posted by Xen
there is sad truth to AA statements- chrsitinity has, and apperntlly will continue to in some countires kill in the name of its self with little or no regard for morality, while other member to it blindlly go about thinking thier moral superiorty because of thier religion
First of all, you almost have the mark. Indeed, the medieval church was not especially loving. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they try to supress the translation of the bible into local languages? Or at least block universities, so people couldn't learn about the book?

Indeed, in the Old Testament, the bible was very millitant, and very nationalistic. As a result, it was very bloody. With the new testament, the bible was pacified and denationalised (Jesus' "love thy neighbour" quotes and how the religion is both for Jew and non-Jew).

Strangely enough, the christian callings of the medieval time were pretty much "Love thy Neigbour, or I kill you."

The Quaran/Koran (spelling?) has an interesting mix of pacifist and millitant quotes in it. (roughly from my memory...) When Mohammed was in exile in the village he escaped to to make his first converts, he was teaching a story of pacifism and being kind to your fellows. However, as he returned to Mecca, and started conquests, he taught some more agressive scripture. Moslem scholars have something worked out how later koran writings supercede older koran writings in order to resolve these 'changes in heart', however I am not a Moslem scholar, so I wouldn't know how it works.

Islamic conquerors had a book that allowed for military expansion without lying about the religion, and as a result could do things much more honorably than the horrid lies and pointless wars that the western churchleaders permitted. In a sense, Christianity has shied away from that culture now, but I still see too much hate among my fellow churchgoers. And, despite what the media tells us, Islam has pacified much too, but, as with christianity, some foolish radicals remain.

Originally posted by aaminion00
:lol: Yes, because September 11th was of such terrible magnitude. No really, how anyone could compare such minor details as the millions killed in the name of christ over the years to the 3000 in the World Trade Center is beyond me. Please. I come from a country where people were killed, raped, and kicked out of their homes in the thousands in the name of Christianity, so don't give me any of that bull. Christianity can easily justify the killing of thousands of innocent people, just like most other popular religions. It's done it for two thousand years and nothing has changed.

Where are those "millions" killed in the name of Christianity? Don't exagerrate. And don't say it has not changed at all.
First of all, when it comes to the crusades, this idea even then was not approved wholy in the west. When it comes to the East, despite the continuous raids of Muslims and ddefinite belief in that the God was on their side, the people who killed anyone in the war, even an unbeliever, were treaten as sinners, and attempts of Kallinikos I think of accepting the Muslim version of martyrdom, which embraces also the people who died fighting the infidel, were not succesful. Even the crusades weren't to fight the unbelievers, but rather to liberate the lands that they captured from CHristians and where they were persecuting Christians. That there were horrible crimes done by the way of it, it is true, but it was no different on Muslim side which, on the other hand, fought unbelievers for simple cause of fighting them - western Christianity accepted this model of behaviour only after relation with Muslims.
When it comes to the present day, it is strange that You don't see any change. The pope visits synagogues, mosques, tells Maronites to get use to being a minority. Yes, even today, Christians do comit crimes in the name of religion, though mostly in revange, and that's the case of Lebanon also. Though killing hungreds of people in revenge for killing their political leader was definitely not right Still, the side that's attacking, be it Nigeria, Indonesia or India, are Muslims (or Hindus in the last example), and I don't think You can find any Christian cleric who would approve of religious fight, without being openly condemned and forced to back off by others if it was known

Originally posted by Squonk
Where are those "millions" killed in the name of Christianity?

gee, why dont you back into the earlyer day of christiatit, like oh say charlegmagne, and how he had pagans ritually burned and tortued if they did not convert, or perhaps the so called "manchean herseys" where religions based even more on mithraism and chiritanity then standard christiaty is were more or less all killed off (or at least that was the attempt), perhaps you forget the massive killings and burings of non christians in the area the baltic sea, mostlyl agaisnt pagans who did not choose to convert to christiaty, there are many millions killed in the name of christ, and a good deal fo them from the ancient religions, yes open your eyes, christiy was a minority religion for so long because simply put, people didnt want to become part of it, and that would have continued had circumstances not come about where christians could force others to bwo to thier religion at sword point

Originally posted by Squonk
Where are those "millions" killed in the name of Christianity? Don't exagerrate. And don't say it has not changed at all.

I won't exaggarate if you don't try to squirm your way out of every mudrer Christianity commited over the past 1600 years or so. Western, primarily Christian based, belief systems resulted in millions of killed over the years, simple truth that any secular historian can see. For the millions killed just look at the heresies, pagans, and jews of Europe, the natives of the Americas, the harsh treatment of Africans, and a variety of other situations. And it hasn't changed at all. You seem to be under the misconception that we're talking numbers. No, we're talking ability, as in the ability to justify. Religion's ability to justify warfare has not changed at all, and Christianity's role as the dominant religion of the world's political top dogs doesn't make it any less capable of justifgying warfare and murder.

Originally posted by Squonk
First of all, when it comes to the crusades, this idea even then was not approved wholy in the west. When it comes to the East, despite the continuous raids of Muslims and ddefinite belief in that the God was on their side, the people who killed anyone in the war, even an unbeliever, were treaten as sinners, and attempts of Kallinikos I think of accepting the Muslim version of martyrdom, which embraces also the people who died fighting the infidel, were not succesful.

Threatened as sinners by who? An occasional priest? What about the Pope who specifically ordered Crusaders to fight and kill the Muslims who he displayed as an inferior race of demons?

"Christ himself will be your leader ... Wear his cross as your badge. If you are killed your sins will be pardoned ... Let those who have been fighting against their own brothers and kinsfolk now fight lawfully against the barbarians."

"O race of Franks! Race beloved and chosen of God... From the confines of Jerusalem and from Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth that an accursed race, wholly alienated from God, has violently invaded the lands of these Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire... Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves..."

Even if we accept your twisted truth as the whole, all it does is showcase the hypocrisy, confusion, and utter stupidity orginized religion has played then, and still can carry out now (Albeit with the rise of secularism to a lesser extent). You also have the Muslim version of martyrdom wrong.

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed ... those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. (22:39-40)

Murder, even in war, doesn't get you to heaven. Defending your faith does, and in the eyes of the Muslim world that's exactly what the Crusades were. Of course Islam's teachings have more violence than Christianity considering the circumstances, but if you're trying to showcase Islam's use of religion for political and often violent purposes this is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by Squonk
Even the crusades weren't to fight the unbelievers, but rather to liberate the lands that they captured from CHristians and where they were persecuting Christians. That there were horrible crimes done by the way of it, it is true, but it was no different on Muslim side which, on the other hand, fought unbelievers for simple cause of fighting them - western Christianity accepted this model of behaviour only after relation with Muslims.

Squonk, please try to start looking at history in an unbiased manner. Before the Turks came onto the scene, violence against monotheists by Muslims was virtually nonexistent, and even then it only reached a peak once the Crusaders attacked. The Turks, a previously nomadic and warlike people, took over from the by then civilized Arabs (who had typically been tolerant) and started hassling Christian pilgrims before completely stopping them from getting to the Holy City of Jerusalem. Some Christians were outraged, the Pope started preaching murder, and nobles saw an opportunity to gain more power. The result is the crusades in which the Crusaders repeatedly get beaten in a war that they would inevitably lose the first phase of (the second phase starting with the discovery of the New World and exuplsion of Muslims from Spain). The Muslims did not necessarily fight nonbelievers simply for the sake of fighting them, they did it for the same reason Christians had been doing for hundreds year. No, sorry, the poor tolerant Christians did not learn this model from the Muslims, people like Constantine, Justinian and Charlemagne, along with various nobility, had been prosecuting pagans, Jews, and other non-Christians for years. In fact, "fighting for Christ" was justified by St. Augistine way back in the early 4th century; was this the Muslim's fault as well? As for Christian leaders, not only did they fight wars and justify their political aspirations using their faith (much like the Muslims), they were extremely intolerant of other religions within their own kingdom in various ways. You can cry all you want about the taxes placed on non-believers (placed because the Muslims were already paying charity), but the fact of the matter is that intolerance for other religions was present throughout the Christian world and worse than whatever was seen in the Muslim world for years. This intolerance on part of the Christians stopped eventually of course... not becasue they learned better but because minorities with half a brain all moved away from there.

Edit: Oh and another thing. Your whole thing about Christians wanting to liberate the opressed Christians in the wholy land is completely wrong. You're forgetting that the crusaders were Catholics whereas the Christians in the holy land were East-Orthodox, and had peacefully lived in the land under Muslim rule for centuries. The Crusaders' commitment to liberating these poor opressed Christians was shown perfectly when they massacred every last one of them they could find upon entering Jerusalem.

Originally posted by Squonk

When it comes to the present day, it is strange that You don't see any change. The pope visits synagogues, mosques, tells Maronites to get use to being a minority.

What's your point, that the Pope won't commit a murder? Hardly shocking. I am not saying that Christianity today largely justifies violance, I am saying that it sometimes does and can do so just as easily as any other religion.

Originally posted by Squonk


Yes, even today, Christians do comit crimes in the name of religion, though mostly in revange, and that's the case of Lebanon also. Though killing hungreds of people in revenge for killing their political leader was definitely not right

Now you say Christians don't attack people now they do... but of course the naturally peaceful and kind Christians only do it when the evil infidels provoke them first, which of course completely justifies the people killed. So the conquistadors are now Islam's fault. Maybe it's Poland's fault that they got invaded during WW2, they were standing in the way of Russia and Germany after all. Squonk, I could care less for Lebanon, I am not too familiar with the conflict there, however I am willing to bet that if Western powers and their genius concept of social darwinism hadn't interferred in the affairs of "inferior" foreign cultures we would not be seeing the problem we have in the Middle East today.

Originally posted by Squonk


Still, the side that's attacking, be it Nigeria, Indonesia or India, are Muslims (or Hindus in the last example), and I don't think You can find any Christian cleric who would approve of religious fight, without being openly condemned and forced to back off by others if it was known

And in between blindly assuming things about regions and conflicts you probably know little more about than the information in your local newspaper and tv station, you keep trying to for some strange reason point out the faults of Islam. Squonk, what is your point? I'm not Muslim, I'm not Christian, I'm not Jewish, I could care less who's doing it, religion in general has caused much killing in the past. What I do care about is the common myth and misconception of Christianity as some sort of haven of peace and understanding then and now which had a slightly violent but misunderstood history (The Muslims started it first!). Your thoughts of today's Christian leadership are also idealized and naive. Read up on the American religious-right, some of who's leaders are preaching for a crusade against Islam. I don't see why you got so worked up over my answer to the question "Could Christianity justify 9/11?", my answer is 100% true. In fact there are many Christians in the U.S. who have already justified 9/11 as punishment from god and are happy it happened. A hundred or so were protesting a mere month or so ago in my city, a fairly important one in the region. You can think all you want about your local priest, he may be a nice guy, but the reason I'm here in this country typing on this keyboard is because of people who not only didn't condemn but publically supported, or rather, preached not merely attacks against my nation, but a genocide against the people as well.

aminion, Jews had a golden age under Muslim Spain, dont just type things before you read the history :crazyeye:

More on christianity -

The conquistador Francisco Pizzaro acquired a bloody record when he found his way into the Incan Empire. In one battle, he and his soldiers brutally massacred 8000 unarmed Incans, and converted the emperor Athuwalpa at sword-point. This makes it one of the worst massacres in military history and is worth over 2 world trade center incidents.

Originally posted by Xen
gee, why dont you back into the earlyer day of christiatit, like oh say charlegmagne, and how he had pagans ritually burned and tortued if they did not convert, or perhaps the so called "manchean herseys" where religions based even more on mithraism and chiritanity then standard christiaty is were more or less all killed off (or at least that was the attempt), perhaps you forget the massive killings and burings of non christians in the area the baltic sea, mostlyl agaisnt pagans who did not choose to convert to christiaty, there are many millions killed in the name of christ, and a good deal fo them from the ancient religions, yes open your eyes, christiy was a minority religion for so long because simply put, people didnt want to become part of it, and that would have continued had circumstances not come about where christians could force others to bwo to thier religion at sword point

First of all, don't You think I know about it? I argue not the facts You give, but numbers. entire population of Polabie, Prussia and Livonia over Baltic that were converted by force, it wasn't more than a million at that times. Population of entire poland wasn't more than a million. If Christianity wasn't attractive for people, why did it expand so rapidly? In the times that christians took the power in the Roman Empire, they were already a majority in many lands, especially in cities.

Originally posted by aaminion00
For the millions killed just look at the heresies,


hungreds, thousands in some cases, but not millions.


pagans,


Again, many were forced and many were killed, but counting the number of victims in millions is a great exagerration.


and jews of Europe,


The same


the natives of the Americas,


Hardly a fault of christianity. The church, at least catholic, tried to help the Indians. It had to convince the Spanish that Indians are people. And attrocities weren't made in the name of christianity, but in the name of greed.
yes, here the number of victims are in millions, but due to diseases that Indians weren't prepared to.


the harsh treatment of Africans,


If You mean slavery, Europeans were most often buying them. The numbers here are high, true, but again it was not done in the name of christianity, but profit.


and a variety of other situations. And it hasn't changed at all.


Are You kidding? Are any Christians comitting slavery or forcing conversion?


You seem to be under the misconception that we're talking numbers. No, we're talking ability, as in the ability to justify.


If You don't talk numbers, don't name them, especially when they are wrong. The ability to justify... Yes, christianity was able to do that, now it does not. And no church was approving the treatement of Indians or Africans that was leading them to death.


Religion's ability to justify warfare has not changed at all, and Christianity's role as the dominant religion of the world's political top dogs doesn't make it any less capable of justifgying warfare and murder.
[quote]

By which You mean America, only America.

[quote]
Threatened as sinners by who? An occasional priest? What about the Pope who specifically ordered Crusaders to fight and kill the Muslims who he displayed as an inferior race of demons?


By the eastern church. I'm talking 'bout the EASTERN church. That's why that You refered to the pope, it makes no sense.
And when it comes to the pope. Yup, that was wrong, though Muslims started it. Today, such statesments by a pope wouldn't be possible, while Muslim scholars didn't change their attitude completely.


You also have the Muslim version of martyrdom wrong.
Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed ... those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. (22:39-40)

Murder, even in war, doesn't get you to heaven. Defending your faith does, and in the eyes of the Muslim world that's exactly what the Crusades were. Of course Islam's teachings have more violence than Christianity considering the circumstances, but if you're trying to showcase Islam's use of religion for political and often violent purposes this is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.


Unfortunatelly, that's not the only passage referring to this question as far as I know. I disagree with your second statesment for the reason I named: while the use of religion for political and often violent purposes started in Christianity several hungred years after Christ, in Islam it started with Muhammad himself. That's the only thing I'm trying to say. The problem is that while Christians can refer to the times from before this period, Muslims can not. The sins of Christianity and Islam are similar, because both religions share the things that caused them - human nature. But in my opinion, Islam is closer to that nature than Christianity as an original doctrine, not as a serie of deeds of believers of one or another religion.


Squonk, please try to start looking at history in an unbiased manner. Before the Turks came onto the scene, violence against monotheists by Muslims was virtually nonexistent,


Financial and social oppresion is opression as well. And there were examples of persecutions. I can agree they weren't massive.


Constantine, Justinian and Charlemagne, along with various nobility, had been prosecuting pagans, Jews, and other non-Christians for years.


It's not quite true when it comes to Constantine.


In fact, "fighting for Christ" was justified by St. Augistine way back in the early 4th century; was this the Muslim's fault as well?


Not, it's because Augustine turned to Old testament instead of listening to the New.


Christian world and worse than whatever was seen in the Muslim world for years.

Prove me that.
The fact is that most often Muslims were treating Christians better than Christians were treating Muslims, but it comes out of a different political situation - which doesn't change the fact.


Edit: Oh and another thing. Your whole thing about Christians wanting to liberate the opressed Christians in the wholy land is completely wrong. You're forgetting that the crusaders were Catholics whereas the Christians in the holy land were East-Orthodox, and had peacefully lived in the land under Muslim rule for centuries. The Crusaders' commitment to liberating these poor opressed Christians was shown perfectly when they massacred every last one of them they could find upon entering Jerusalem.


Of course I agree, that they were mistreating eastern christians! The same as there were internal struggles between Muslims as well. but crusaders in Jerusalem only massacred them because they thought they were Muslims...


What's your point, that the Pope won't commit a murder? Hardly shocking. I am not saying that Christianity today largely justifies violance, I am saying that it sometimes does and can do so just as easily as any other religion.


gimme examples for christian justification of violence except for America.


Now you say Christians don't attack people now they do... but of course the naturally peaceful and kind Christians only do it when the evil infidels provoke them first, which of course completely justifies the people killed.


I've said it does not justify. I've only said that in the conflicts, the Muslims are the attacking side - and the places of conflicts are where christians are minority - in India and Indonesia so small that You hardly can believe they could attack anyone.


if Western powers and their genius concept of social darwinism hadn't interferred in the affairs of "inferior" foreign cultures we would not be seeing the problem we have in the Middle East today.


Actually, I partially agree


What I do care about is the common myth and misconception of Christianity as some sort of haven of peace and understanding then and now which had a slightly violent but misunderstood history (The Muslims started it first!). Your thoughts of today's Christian leadership are also idealized and naive.


You are prejudiced to Christianity. That's the problem.